DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 09/11/2025, with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9 and 10 have been fully considered. Claims 1, 9 and 10 have been amended. Applicant mentions that claim 3 is cancelled, but since claim 3 is still in the dataset, claim 3 is still considered.
Applicant’s arguments in pages 9-13, filed 09/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C 101 rejections of claims 1-7, 9 and 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that the amended claim features of the "notifying unit" and "registering unit" clearly set forth additional structural matters that are not mental processes. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Those units are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. The current specification in pages 2-3, 25-26, and claims 4 and 6 specifies that the hardware processor, which is a part of a general computer, is configured to function as those units. The specification clearly specifies all of them as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Applicant further argues that the claims as currently written also clearly set forth a practical application. He argued that “claim 1 is directed to a speech recognition system, and as currently written, when detecting an item name similar to a predefined item name from a text obtained by performing speech recognition on an utterance of a user, word strings similar to a first key word can be limited by focusing on a leading word or a last word of the first key word. Thereby with claim features the number of combinations of the word strings can be suppressed when detecting a second word string having high similarity to the first key word. Applicant submits such features clearly set forth an enhanced speech recognition operation, which are clearly directed to a practical application”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims 1, 9 and 10 recites that “a dividing unit receives a text obtained by performing speech recognition on an utterance of a user” , after this initial speech recognition, many processed have been described , but none of them indicated how speech recognition is enhanced, how it’s applied in a practical application. None of the dependent claims or the drawings mentioned anything regarding speech recognition or explain how the processing of text obtained from speech recognition enhances the speech recognition operation. The use of a computer does not preclude performance of the invention via pen and paper or in a person’s mind. Also, the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to perform a task or simply adding an application. Here the computer is the machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Thus, 35 U.S.C 101 rejections of claims 1-7, 9 and 10 have been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments in pages 13-17, filed 09/11/2025, with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9 and 10, under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Compact Prosecution
In order to advance prosecution of this case, the examiner reached out to the attorney with a proposal for examiner’s amendment which would take care of 35 USC 101 issue, but no agreement was reached to place the case in condition for allowance. Examiner recommends to amend the claims to tie with speech recognition and practical application. Also to amend the claims to bring limitations regarding form data, slot fillings etc. Please note this is an attempt to provide suggestions to further advance prosecution but has not been searched. An updated search would be required if agreed to.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the response to arguments, page 9, applicant mentioned that claim 3 is cancelled, but claim 3 is still in the claim set. For this reason, claim 3 is still considered for the below 35 USC 101 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed
to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The independent claims 1, 9 and 10 recite "a memory”; “and a hardware processor coupled to the memory and configured to function as: a dividing unit that receives a text obtained by performing speech recognition on an utterance of a user, and a first-type keyword that is a predefined item name included in form data, and divides the first-type keyword into a plurality of first-type words, and divides the text into a plurality of second-type words”; “an extracting unit that extracts, from the text, at least either a plurality of word strings of which a leading word of each includes a second-type word matching with a leading first-type word of the first-type keyword, or a plurality of word strings of which a last word of each includes a second-type word matching with a last first-type word of the first-type keyword”; “a detecting unit that detects, when none of the plurality of word strings match with the first type keyword, as a second-type keyword that is the item name similar to the predefined item name, a word string having a high similarity to the first-type keyword among the plurality of word strings based on a degree of character similarity indicating a similarity in character between each of the plurality of word strings and the first-type keyword, and a degree of composition similarity indicating a similarity in composition between each of the plurality of word strings and the first-type keyword”; “an estimating unit that estimates the item name from the second-type keyword”; “a notifying unit that presents to the user a response sentence indicating whether the detected second-type keyword corresponds to the first-type keyword”; “and a registering unit that stores in the memory the second-type keyword as a paraphrastic expression of the first-type keyword in response to the second-type keyword corresponding to the first-type keyword”, “wherein the degree of composition similarity is set based on a number of second-type words that, from among the plurality of second-type words included in each of the plurality of word strings, match with the plurality of first-type words.” The limitations above as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, as this could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
Dividing the received text and a first-type keyword that is a predefined item name, into a plurality of first-type words, and a plurality of second-type words, extracting either a plurality of word strings of which a leading word of each includes a second-type word matching with a leading first-type word of the first-type keyword, could be done by observation and evaluation in human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Further, detecting that none of the plurality of word strings match with the first type keyword, as a second-type keyword that is the item name similar to the predefined item name, detecting character similarity ( similarity in character between each of the plurality of word strings and the first-type keyword) and degree of composition similarity (similarity in composition between each of the plurality of word strings and the first-type keyword), are examples of observation and evaluation that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Presenting response sentence where second-type keyword corresponds to the first-type keyword, to the user and storing second-type keyword as a paraphrastic expression of the first-type keyword could be done with the aid of pen and paper. Further, the basis of degree of composition similarity on a number of second-type words that, from among the plurality of second-type words included in each of the plurality of word strings, match with the plurality of first-type words, is more examples of observation and evaluation that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
The claims recite the additional limitation of a “processor”, “memory”, “ non transitory computer readable medium”, “dividing unit”, “detecting unit”, “extracting unit”, “notifying unit”, “registering unit”, for performing the method. All those are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. The current specification in pages 2-3, 25-26, specifies that the hardware processor, which is a part of a general computer, is configured to function as a dividing unit, an extracting unit, and a detecting unit. All other units are also can be implemented with using a single computer. The specification clearly specifies all of them as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The claims as drafted, are not patent eligible.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Claims 1, 9 and 10 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the hardware processor is configured to further function as a searching unit that searches for synonyms that are similar to the first-type words by using a thesaurus, and the extracting unit further extracts, from the text, at least either a word string in which the second-type word matching with a synonym that is similar to the leading first-type word of the first-type keyword is included as the leading word, or a word string in which the second-type word matching with a synonym that is similar to the last first-type word of the first-type keyword is included as the last word” , where searching for synonym by using thesaurus, extracting word strings, from text, in which the second-type word matching with synonym, is observation, evaluation and could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Further, searching unit, extraction unit are additional elements, which are some configuration of processor, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim 2 as drafted, is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the first-type keyword indicates item name included in form data, and the hardware processor is configured to further function as an estimating unit that estimates the item name from the second-type keyword”. Estimating the item name from some keyword is an evaluation, observation and could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. The estimation unit, is an additional elements, which is some configuration of processor, is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim 3 as drafted, is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites “further comprising a memory unit that is used to store therein the item name in association with paraphrastic expression of the item name, wherein the hardware processor is configured to further function as a registering unit that registers the second-type keyword as the paraphrastic expression in the memory unit”. Storing the item name in association with paraphrastic expression, registering the second-type keyword as the paraphrastic expression could be done on a paper with the aid of pen and paper. The memory unit is an additional element. The registering unit, is an additional elements, which is some configuration of processor. None of the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim 4 as drafted, is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the hardware processor is configured to further function as a notifying unit that confirms with the user about whether or not the second-type keyword corresponds to the item name, and when the second-type keyword does not correspond to the item name, notifies that the item name is not identifiable”. Confirming with user about whether or not the second-type keyword corresponds to the item name, and when the second-type keyword does not correspond to the item name, notifies that the item name is not identifiable, could be done in person, verbally or with the aid of pen and paper. The notifying unit, is an additional element, which is some configuration of processor and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim 5 as drafted, is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the hardware processor is configured to further function as a notifying unit that confirms with the user about whether or not to register the second-type keyword as the paraphrastic expression, and when registering the second-type keyword as the paraphrastic expression, requests the registering unit to register the second-type keyword ”. Notifying the user about whether or not to register the second-type keyword as the paraphrastic expression, and when registering the second-type keyword as the paraphrastic expression, could be done in person, verbally or with the aid of pen and paper. The notifying unit, the registering unit, are additional elements, which are some configuration of processor. None of the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim 6 as drafted, is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the degree of character similarity is set based on at least either cosine similarity or Levenshtein distance”, where degree of character similarity is based on either cosine similarity or Levenshtein distance is an observation and could be done in human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as claim 7 does not recite any additional limitations. The claim 7 as drafted, is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9 and 10 contain subject matter that is allowable over the prior art of record. They would be considered allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADIRA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)272-4048. The examiner can normally be reached M-F,7:30 am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paras D. Shah can be reached on (571) 270-1650. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NADIRA SULTANA/Examiner, Art Unit 2653
/Paras D Shah/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
11/23/2025